Main Entry: 1res·i·dent Pronunciation: \ˈre-zə-dənt, ˈrez-dənt, ˈre-zə-ˌdent\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from
Anglo-French, from Latin resident-, residens, present participle of residēre Date: 14th century
1 a : living in a place for some length of time : residing b : serving in a regular or full-time capacity ; also : being in residence
2 : present, inherent
3 : not migratory

Main Entry: 1at Pronunciation: \ət, ˈat\ Function: preposition Etymology: Middle English, from Old English æt; akin to Old High German az at,
Latin ad Date: before 12th century
1 —used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in, on, or near
2 —used as a function word to indicate the goal of an indicated or implied action or motion
3 —used as a function word to indicate that with which one is occupied or employed
4 —used as a function word to indicate situation in an active or passive state or condition
5 —used as a function word to indicate the means, cause, or manner
6 a —used as a function word to indicate the rate, degree, or position in a scale or series b —used as a function word to indicate age or
position in time

Main Entry: 1law Pronunciation: \ˈlȯ\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old
Norse lǫg law; akin to Old English licgan to lie — more at lie Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a
controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or
enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of
established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e :
control, authority 2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures :
pentateuch, torah — see bible table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : jurisprudence c : legal knowledge
6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved
or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions —
at law : under or within the provisions of the law

(emphasis added)

Interesting are two things:
One is that the word "law" is not from Latin. It is Scandinavian in origin. (Proto, perhaps you may be able to expand on this.) Another is that the
word "law" is akin to an Old English word meaning "to lie".

Another interesting thing, that ties very much into the Roman conspiracy is that when capitalized it refers to the word of God as laid out in the Old
Testament.

There's my two cents. Choose what definition you want, but remember that the proper choice of definition relies on context.

However Proto, I do have to agree with you on one thing. I am not sure where the idea that capitalizing one's name translates into Capitis
Diminutio Maxima? "Capitus" translates to "you take" from Latin. Nothing to do with capital. Although I am not saying I dispute the
corporate status of THE UNITED STATES. I just don't see the connection there.

Also I find it interesting that everyone who disputes this thread ends up reinforcing it.

Some truly outstanding research there as always my friend dbloch, you have a true gift for digging up the very pertinent but very hard to come by
hidden truths of these things.

Scandanavia and the House of Dan played a very crucial role during the middle ages in terrorizing the pagans of Europe to convert to Roman
Christianity in their role as the Viking Horde.

I layed out some of this in my All Roads Lead to Rome thread.

If you you really want to understand how the Capitalization of names fully translates into law, you want to find older versions of Black's Law or
other Legal Dictionaries.

You want to go back at least 50 years, and the older the better.

They started obscuring some of these things more carefully starting in the 1970's with the advent of Credit Cards.

Thanks for the great research on the word RESIDENT.

Interestingly enough it is the very oldest root definition of a word that actually establishes it's precedent in law.

To a certain extent because the Internet is a relatively recent invention, the oldest sources which are relatively rare and tucked away in libraries
and personal book collections aren't that easy to come by.

Libraries are still much more definitive places to do some serious research.

Well, I myself took care of the whole census problem a week or so ago, when a worker showed up at my house one evening. I gave them my first and last
name, my gender, my cell phone# (which is hardly ever turned on to begin with, but it is a valid phone #), how many people live in my house and
that's about it. I really fixed 'em (well, the poor ol' census worked didn't seem to "get it", as she wrote down what I said) when I answered
the B.S. question on race with "other - European"!

IMO that's what people should be outraged about, not the fact that they count people or want to know how many people there are in a certain area or
home. Some stiff will be poring over my form and see "European" and note it, and then suddenly they will stop and think "WTF!?!?!?" I'm sorry,
but they don't need to know my race. We are all human beings, same species....it would be like if someone demanded to know not only how many cats I
have, but what breeds they are! What does it matter? With animals, breed matters if you are entering a show, competition or breeding and selling
animals. I'm not a race, I'm a human female who just happens to be descended from ancient Western European peoples. And if I was black and not
white, I still would have messed with them - instead of "African American" I would have put "other - Tahitian, Jamaican, Tanzanian", etc, just to
throw it back in their faces for asking such a ridiculous question.

People talk about the constitution like it's a holy grail, but the constitution basically set up a republic with three basic and simple laws, you
could not kill someone except in self defense, you could not steal (but it was a debtors not a criminal issue if you did) and you could not committ
treason.

People talk about the various amendments to the constitution to like they are the holy grail, but the truth is that over 600,000 laws have been added
to the United States Codes since 1781, so that simple, plain original document has been stipulated 600,000 ways to date, and more every day.

It's impossible because of so many laws to know them all in their totality, and in reality all those 600,000 stipulations to the Constitution render
the constitution itself a meaningless museum piece.

The spirit of the constitution and its functionality has long ago been completely and utterly destroyed and its more than evident when you look at the
state of our union.

When the nation started out there were really 3 basic constitutional

Sir, first of all thank you very much for this thread. Second, if I may be so bold, I beg to differ. It is my opnion that under the consitution we the
people have no rights, nor does the constitution set any laws to we the people. Quite the opposite in fact!

I'm under the assumption the laws you speak of are federal laws, so forgive me if I'm wrong. However, if I am correct I implore you to research the
federal jurisdiction as well as how these statutory laws are implemented.

In keeping with the words of my last post I have not replied to you or continued to post to this thread as I could no longer continue a debate with
someone that used the tactics you employ.

I will only address your reply to what should have been my last post and offer more debate due to overwhelming support from ATS members. My u2u box
was full of emails this morning pertaining to my posts to your thread. After doing the basic math I have determined that 87% of these emails are in
support of my position and 74% beg for my return to this thread. Hence I have returned to continue to offer a voice of ration and reason on this
thread.

You attempted to accuse me of emotional tactics to derail your thread, you accused me of wanting to censor your speech, and you have accused me of
using other tactics that I have seen you yourself blatantly use against people that disagree with you. You intonate that these tactics are
unacceptable to be addressed to you yet regularly employ them when addressing others.

Suggesting that your thread be moved to a hoax thread would not have quelled your right to express yourself. You would have been able to continue the
discussion at will in the hoax thread; you simply would no longer have the implied validation of not being in the hoax thread to back up your
claims.

I return to this thread with renewed vigor to continue to show light and reason with sound arguments based on facts. I will not reply to your
insinuations, insults, or hurt feelings with which you are so quick to reply to my arguments. I will only engage you on the topic of this debate and
the supporting articles of your position. I am not in any way asking you to tailor your replies to my above statement. I am simply informing you up
front that replies not directly related to this discussion and your position will be ignored until a post of relevance is supplied.

Suggesting that your thread be moved to a hoax thread would not have quelled your right to express yourself. You would have been able to continue the
discussion at will in the hoax thread; you simply would no longer have Suggesting that your thread be moved to a hoax thread would not have quelled
your right to express yourself. You would have been able to continue the discussion at will in the hoax thread; you simply would no longer have the
implied validation of not being in the hoax thread to back up your claims.of not being in the hoax thread to back up your claims.

Who do you think you're kidding? Proto, nor anyone else does not have to prove it is not a hoax, and since it is you attempting to chill speech by
relegating this thread as a hoax, the burden of proof lies upon you. Simply asserting this thread is a hoax just won't do.

Since you seem unable to prove this thread is a hoax, one is left to reason that you are only interested in chilling speech and care not about truth
or facts, only that you get an opportunity to remove this thread from what you have called the "implied validation of not being in the hoax thread".

Precisely my point! Your insistence on relying on fallacious arguments to derail a thread is off topic, but you are here anyway, making a total fool
of yourself.

Why do you accuse me of using fallacious arguments? My arguments have been supported by facts and logical conclusions based upon the data at hand. I
have offered support of my position through sources. A fallacious argument is defined as follows:

Proto has offered nothing in the way of proof other than that of his own opinions and interpretations. I have questioned Proto regarding particulars
of his viewpoint only to be met with replies that I am attacking him. My next post addressed to Proto will offer him the opportunity to redeem
himself in the eyes of the readers by providing a point by point format for his response to my query.

My arguments have been based upon valid sources and historical facts. His argument is assumptive in nature and based upon observations that are more
than questionable. His blatant ignoring of those whom seek to engage him on these particulars is further supportive of his argument being the one
most befitting the term fallacious.

I applaud you for feeling passion regarding any topic. I applaud anyone that openly expresses their opinion and welcome all to do so. What I do not
applaud is the use of unsound fiction to base arguments upon, historical inaccuracy, and various other means of misdirection used in a debate to
attempt to artificially discredit a dissenting viewpoint with matters outside the parameters of that said debate.

I diligently read through the entirety of this thread before making a single post. This means I read your posts as well as every other post. I am
not seeing where you have proven this thread is a hoax. Until you can prove this thread is a hoax, your argument that it is one remains fallacious.
If for some reason you have posted this proof, and I somehow missed it, you are going to have to point me to it, otherwise I am going to rely upon
what I read and remember, and not just take your word for it, that the arguments you've made, were enough to prove this thread a hoax.

Your passion is most welcome too, my friend, and if it weren't for the fact that you began demanding this thread be relegated to the hoax forum, I
never would have taken issue with you. Had you merely just relied upon your passion to continue making your arguments, I never would have seen this
as foolhardy, even though I may have taken some of your arguments up and sought a debate. But this insistence of yours that this thread should be
removed from what you yourself describe as implied validity, is of great concern, and failing proving this thread is a hoax, is most certainly an
effort to chill speech.

Just debate the issue as passionately as you want my friend, and I assure you I will defend most passionately your right to do so. There is no need
to attempt to slow down the velocity in which this thread has grown, just keep at it, and defend your position and let go of this horrid idea of
moving this thread to a forum that necessarily dictates the validity of your position and diminishes that of your opposition. If you are willing to
let go of your campaign to relegate this thread to the hoax forum, I will most gladly retract my accusations of you making a fool of yourself, for
surely passionately arguing your position is noble and just.

You do understand that your post is completely off topic and adds nothing of substance to the discussion.

The Topic of the Thread is the 2010 Census, How I (Proto) have responded to 5 Enumerators.

Considering you have hardly earned a solitary star for your off topic posts, your claims of a flood of U2U's in support of your position are patently
absurd.

Your other contentions in regards to how I have interacted with you are absent a solitary quotation to illustrate these claims, the quotation function
is on ATS for a reason.

The thread has yielded a true wealth of highly topical information, from a number of sincere, honest and passionate posters.

You seem to be in a very small minority, in feeling that these very real facts from a wide variety of sources, that clarify what words mean, and the
United States corporate status are not relevant or pertinent in regards to the census. This is based on the actual Thread activity of posters
commenting and starring and the public record that they are creating in that process.

You are entitled to voice your opinion, but the truth is, it is simply your opinion, and one that seems to be ignoring a proponderance of evidence
that does not support your opinion.

I am not aware of a campaign that I have undertaken. I have once suggested moving this thread and have once reinforced my rationale for doing so.
Please do not exaggerate my actions into a campaign being undertaken when I have in no way "campaigned", only suggested once and reinforced that
suggestion once.

Now if we can stop this back and forth off topic discussion and revert back to focusing on the topic of the thread I think both of us would find
greater measures of success in our mutual postings.

I do want to touch base on one of your previous posts. Please do not feel concerned that any grammatical or syntax errors you might make in a post
may somehow discredit or otherwise weaken your argument. Anyone that would use an error such as grammar or syntax to attack a position rather than
the actual substantive reasons behind anyone's position are not familiar with the proper methods of debate. Anyone attacking you for grammar or
syntax would also be demonstrating the weakness and inferiority of their own argument.

I am not aware of a campaign that I have undertaken. I have once suggested moving this thread and have once reinforced my rationale for doing so.
Please do not exaggerate my actions into a campaign being undertaken when I have in no way "campaigned", only suggested once and reinforced that
suggestion once.

Suggesting that your thread be moved to a hoax thread would not have quelled your right to express yourself. You would have been able to continue the
discussion at will in the hoax thread; you simply would no longer have the implied validation of not being in the hoax thread to back up your
claims.

Your post where you first made the assertion:

I would also like to make an earnest appeal to the moderators to have this thread transferred to the HOAX section immediately. Should the
disinformation and irrational statements of Proto be followed by readers of this thread they could suffer penalties prescribed under the law regarding
the Census. I feel it is in the best interest of anyone reading this site that this thread be labeled as a hoax to help keep otherwise good people
from suffering needless but valid criminal prosecution for violating the laws pertaining to the Census.

Most certainly comes off as a campaign.

Now if we can stop this back and forth off topic discussion and revert back to focusing on the topic of the thread I think both of us would find
greater measures of success in our mutual postings.

I would love to see this thread get back on topic, and I would love to know which of your arguments you believe actually refute what the O.P. has
related. I can not know, and only assume, but I would rather know. You tell me what arguments you are talking about, and I will gladly consider them
and their validity. Let us both make the commitment from here on out to remain on topic, and if I must assume anything at this point, then allow me
to assume that your insistence you are not campaigning to have this thread moved to hoax, and seemingly have no intention of continuing to suggest
this, so that I may formally retract my statement of you making a fool of yourself, and humbly apologize for that remark. So then, let games
begin!

P.S. I know it can be frustrating to repeat yourself, in terms of arguments you've made that you believe to be valid and factual, and I know
because I often find myself having to do so, but in the fairness of knowledge, pointing me to these arguments would be best in making clear what you
mean by valid arguments.

Another great thread Proto and I'm glad that at least one of us has the gumption and courage to not only just stand up and be heard, but to take
action in their righteous defiance of the corrupt system that you have so eloquently exposed. A thought is one thing, to act on that thought and then
prove it, well.... Isn't that what the scientific method is all about? True knowledge can only be gleaned from experience, which is why hearsay is
not admissable in any court of law (should I have capitalized LAW? I don't know?

)

PS. I was going to be one of the first ones to post a reply to this thread the other day, but I didn't see it until very late, got tired and went to
bed. After working all morning, I came home and the thread had grown by like 11 pages. Due to time constraints placed on me by my family
obligations, it took me a while to get through the whole thread, and I didn't want to post without reading it through.

Jean Paul Zodeaux... I'm impressed, and that's not easy to do. Your portrayal of the 16th amendment is spot on, and this is what many in the tax
protest movement do not understand is that the 16th amendment is a redundancy within the Constitution. It merely restates exactly what is already in
Art. I Section 8, thus the Supreme Court has ruled several times that it confers no new powers of taxation. A lot of tax protesters waste their time
arguing the validity of the 16th, when the poiint is actually moot, as you have said.

The crux, rather, of their argument should rely on whether the Constitution grants the power to tax wages as income as defined by the Constitution,
which is really just a moot point as well, since under undeclared contracts (such as the Census,) we are treated as commercial chattel under the
Commerce Clause.

I am not a BAR Code, I am a human being, and believe it or not the very first computers were developed by IBM for Nazi Germany, to catalog and count
concentration and labor camp inmates.

Wrong. You are a bar code. Every citizen in America at birth is given corporate status. This is reflected in the fact that your name appears on all
legal documents in all capitol letters. Its is called a strawman.

Because the USA is a legal corporation they have to follow legal corporate statutes. To enforce these statutes, you have to be a member of the
corporation. They cannot enforce a statute outside of the corporation for non members - Just like Microsoft cannot go and tell employees of Shell Oil
how to run their affairs.

At birth your Strawman and corporate identity ( that is falsely made up without your consent) are added to the United States of America's corporate
member list. This is how they have power over you. You did not consent to this.

If you get a legal document saying you must appear in court, and your name is in all capitol letters, it is not the real You they are requesting but
your strawman. If you answer the summons then by default you are giving the court power over you to exercise their will on your person. You are in
effect saying that yes, you and your strawman are indeed one and the same person.

There is tons of info about this on the net if you search for Strawman and or why is America a corporation. many other countries have this system set
up also. We are publicly traded commodity's on the world market. That's is why the census comes from the department it does.

There are ways to legally declare yourself free from this strawman, but you also give up the rights and freedoms afforded by being a member of the
corporation of the United States of America. So it's a hard thing to choose if your planning to be a good citizen anyway.

I am curious, you asked the thread to be moved to "hoax" so that others will be protected.

1. What are the penalties associated with this thread you are so gallantly trying to prevent people you personally don't know from experiencing? Have
you experienced such penalties, or do you know others who have - personally know, not heard? What you "heard" penalties are does not count.

2. Are you against all topics on this board in which someone may suffer some penalty? Do you move to have each of those topics placed in hoax? Which
topics have you done so, so we can understand where you are coming from.

3. Many of us have done years, and years, of research into many areas that you have not done any research on. Do you want all threads you are not
familiar with moved to hoax?

4. If what proto and the rest of us say is bs, then state this and we will accept your opinion, but we will not change ours based solely on that.
Please feel free to state we are nuts and you are moving on to a more rational topic.

I am personally confused by those to come to threads to simply attempt to assert their belief system upon the rest. Can folks be so insecure in
themselves that all threats to those beliefs must be met with fervent action taken against those who may contradict? And isn't this process of
thinking the very thing that is used as an excuse to kill anyone that challenges us. Proto's main point above all else is the census is a metaphor
for the whole process of governements taking control of a population and imposing its will on them without regard to the very thing said government
proclaims to be reprsentitive of. If you are on this site at all then you agree with this implicitly.

It seems that what you are doing here, is taking the threat to your beliefs and attacking those with a differing opinion and using the idea of
"helping" others - via protection through a hoax thread movement. No one stands taller then one who is so insecure that they use the "helping
others" card to destroy conflicting beliefs. Weren't folks is Salem so insecure about the idea or supposed power of witches that they "helped" the
town folks by burning them, rather than talking with them?

Lastly, do you believe, as proto clearly does, that each is free to choose their own path? Each is free to seek out the information that expands their
freedom to the greatest level possible, or do you believe that there are limits to what one can be trusted with and that limit should be created and
maintained by the masses through institutions like the government? Proto's point is we are not free enough and true freedom never hurt anyone, but
you are saying true freedom on this thread will hurt people and you are so sure of it you'd like the thread stopped. If you are so sure it will hurt
people, please demonstrate, not through hearsay and innuendo, what will happen to us by reading this.

as an aside, I believe I read the penalty for not complying is 100 bucks per question or 1k max, and no one has ever been imprisoned, though proto's
5 guests might feel like a prison.

I have long suspected that those who put out the disinformation about the 16th Amendment are agent provocateurs willfully attempting to lead honest
people down dangerous roads. I am pleased to know you are not one who has allowed these people to lead you down that road.

That damned Commerce Clause has caused much more trouble than it is worth. I am not one who willingly embraces Proto's rejection of the
Constitution, nor am I one who regards that document sacredly. The three-fifths clause is a big bone of contention with me, and I am skeptical about
the necessity of the Commerce Clause as well. As the O.P. has been great in providing much information to help better understand what free people
face when dealing with governments, it is prudent to understand how the Constitution has been used against free people as well. Even so, I have found
that document to be useful when asserting my rights, and state constitutions as well. In the end, we all have to inform ourselves of the law, which
means knowing which legislation is valid and which is not.

A big argument in this thread is that the Constitution mandates a census taking, and through implication that it has imposed a legal burden on the
people. Of course, Article I, Section 2 only imposes a mandate on Congress, and does grant them some authority in legislating law to handle that
census, but at no point has that document ever allowed Congress to legislate law that would abrogate and derogate the rights of the people, and in
that regard, The Census Bureau as it exists today, is just a bloated, intrusive federal agency that seeks to expand government like all tax supported
professionals seem to do. Thanks for your comments, my friend.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.